Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Steam Reviews, Paywalls, and the Effect on DLC Production

It has been over a week since the Curse of the Vampire Coast DLC pack has released to positive reception from the community(mostly). However, with the release of new DLC and FLC that add to the content and life-span of the game, come the inevitable outpour of negative steam reviews bashing the game for "locking content behind a paywall" and "anti-consumer sales practises."

As of now the steam review section for Total War Warhammer 2 is sitting at a 'mostly positive,' having gone down from the 'very positive' it was sitting at prior to the release of the COtVC DLC.

Now a lot of members on the forum might not care about this complaining, but the potential effect these review-bombers could have on the life-cycle of the game is alarming. CA has taken notice of these negative reviews, and, when accounting for the lack of Warhammer DLC, used the negative steam reviews as a reason for delayed production. Due to CA's patching process, if the negative reviewers can influence CA to not make as much DLC, then that's less patching that will be done on the game, hurting everybody.

I can only hope that CA no longer takes into account these Steam reviewers(some of which believe none of the DLC races should cost anything) when making new DLC. The idea that all of the DLC races and lord packs are merely content locked behind a paywall is absolutely ridiculous and only serves to hamper the potential of this recreation of the Warhammer World.

Comments

I sometimes wonder how people complaining about DLC get they pay checks.What ever they work they surely understand that in order to have more you need to pay more right? because making more cost more.I not saying there are no cases of DLC's being bad, but relative speaking is not only CA relative sparse with DLC's they also tend to give relative lot. Granted the later is a perk of strategy games but still.

20 bucks for 40+ hours of entertainment isn't a bad deal.You can do much worse then that.

I would agree with you BUT I actually have noticed something : I just bought Warhammer II using a coupon (as in yesterday) and honestly, I'm having fun.

However when I - playing as the High Elves - tried to confederate (in order to peacefully unite the island) with the other High Elves I had no problem... until I tried doing it with Alarielle.

Now I did look a bit into it and there should be no reason for me to not be able to confederate with her faction (Military Alliance IS available after all) unless CA "disabled" the players ability to confederate with a faction that requires a DLC to be played. And that's a big problem in my opinion (as in the paywall kind of problem).

So yeah, don't just dismiss completely the paywall claims, because I believe there's at least a nugget of truth in them

They should be ignored because of one simple question, "Would we have gotten Tomb Kings or Vampire Coast without DLC?"

And the answer to that is? No.

The DLC pays for that stuff, it pays for the FLC we get even. You can possibly get an arguement out that lord packs get stuff purposefully left out for a dlc later but the campaign packs are simply the way to get those.

And these people will always crawl out of the woodworks and go, "I deserve art commissions for free." Because they're the same ilk that hound artists all the same. There can be predatory artificially cut DLC but Vampire Coast is not one of those, nor was the Tomb Kings.

I would agree with you BUT I actually have noticed something : I just bought Warhammer II using a coupon (as in yesterday) and honestly, I'm having fun.

However when I - playing as the High Elves - tried to confederate (in order to peacefully unite the island) with the other High Elves I had no problem... until I tried doing it with Alarielle.

Now I did look a bit into it and there should be no reason for me to not be able to confederate with her faction (Military Alliance IS available after all) unless CA "disabled" the players ability to confederate with a faction that requires a DLC to be played. And that's a big problem in my opinion (as in the paywall kind of problem).

So yeah, don't just dismiss completely the paywall claims, because I believe there's at least a nugget of truth in them

I haven't had that kind of problem wince I do own most DLCs, but as far I remember, in WH1, you could get stuff "behind the paywall" through confrontation.

She being difficult to confederate could have other (also hard to grasp) could have another reason, then the suppose paywall plot.

I am fairly sure that you can confederate Avalorn and maybe even get some DLC units. That being said, you'd not be able to recruit them. That is how it was in TWW1.

-Forum Terms and Conditions: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/172193/forum-terms-and-conditions#latest-Using all caps is the equivalent of shouting. Please don't.-The "Spam" flag is not a "disagree" flag. Have a care.-...No, no the "Abuse" flag isn't a "disagree" flag either!-5.7 Summon a moderator if someone seems to be out of line, or use the report button. Do NOT become another party to misbehaviour

People will complain about anything these days. For me these expansions are some of the best value for money dlcs on the market. You get a whole new race with all new artwork, mechanics, features, quests, legendary lords, sounds and music for under $20. That is hours of replayability added to two campaign modes, plus potentially to the next game as well.

The fact is that a high percent of people who buy it and love it don't leave reviews and then you have a plethora of self entitled people, who have their life prioritizations completely out of whack, writing scathing reviews about it costing to much. It's quite sad to be honest.

Sorry to hear about that Rewan, yea, CA's games have had a reputation for bugs(off-related topic) so that could be an issue. But, I'd say that it would be better to have Alarielle in the game, and not being able to confederate with her, than not have her in the game at all. At least you have Alith Anar to make up for it, a character who would probably never make it into the game if the negative reviewers had their way with it.

Some people think that they could get the DLCs content for free and that's ridiculous, only those who complain about the paywall of Mortal Empires Map( that requires both game 1 and game 2) have a point.

Yeah, sure, sometimes CA is transparent for the reason behind various decisions, such as why Norsca was delayed for Game 2.

But a lot of the time, they use the same type of PR, doublespeak, business excuses that they think will lessen backlash as any other company; and these excuses rarely correlate to the actual problem.

The actual reason the DLC pace has been slow likely has to do with how many different projects they are working on at the same time and needed to spread out release dates for it all in order to avoid oversaturating their market.

But they can't come out and say that^^ Not with all the "separate teams" criticisms they've already received. So what better way to steer ire away from themselves by displacing it on people who DARE give their products negative reviews? It's actually pretty clever.

TL;DR: Steam reviews have nothing to do with DLC production pace and CA knows it. They are just trying to maximize sales by giving all their content a unique release window while giving us a strawman to be angry with that isn't themselves.

Some people think that they could get the DLCs content for free and that's ridiculous, only those who complain about the paywall of Mortal Empires Map( that requires both game 1 and game 2) have a point.

I would be open to having the Mortal Empires map be free, but you can only play the factions you paid for in it.

Yeah, sure, sometimes CA is transparent for the reason behind various decisions, such as why Norsca was delayed for Game 2.

But a lot of the time, they use the same type of PR, doublespeak, business excuses that they think will lessen backlash as any other company; and these excuses rarely correlate to the actual problem.

The actual reason the DLC pace has been slow likely has to do with how many different projects they are working on at the same time and needed to spread out release dates for it all in order to avoid oversaturating their market.

But they can't come out and say that^^ Not with all the "separate teams" criticisms they've already received. So what better way to steer ire away from themselves by displacing it on people who DARE give their products negative reviews? It's actually pretty clever.

TL;DR: Steam reviews have nothing to do with DLC production pace and CA knows it. They are just trying to maximize sales by giving all their content a unique release window while giving us a strawman to be angry with that isn't themselves.

False. Compare the CotBM or RotWE campaign packs to TK and VCoast. The latter really got a lot of extra effort put into them.

Some people think that they could get the DLCs content for free and that's ridiculous, only those who complain about the paywall of Mortal Empires Map( that requires both game 1 and game 2) have a point.

I would be open to having the Mortal Empires map be free, but you can only play the factions you paid for in it.

Yes, that how it works with the factions that a player don't own from the same area.

I still don't see much of a problem with it, given that realistically most games don't even let you include DLC units in their campaign in any fashion if you don't buy the DLC.

At least here you get to fight the Tomb Kings and such.

-Forum Terms and Conditions: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/172193/forum-terms-and-conditions#latest-Using all caps is the equivalent of shouting. Please don't.-The "Spam" flag is not a "disagree" flag. Have a care.-...No, no the "Abuse" flag isn't a "disagree" flag either!-5.7 Summon a moderator if someone seems to be out of line, or use the report button. Do NOT become another party to misbehaviour

Well you don't but I do because that's a paywall (on diplomacy if anything else)

I don't want to use the DLC units, heck if confederating without the DLC disbanded said units I would be fine with it. (some may not but I would because again I don't really care)BUTIt's just that up until now CA had a very lenient policy towards the matter (aka you the player can't recruit DLC units but they are in your campaign and the AI may use them against you and/or you may get them if you confederate) : it has been like that since the Shogun 2 days.

I'm just raising my yellow flag on the issue here : the policy has been - visibly - changed without any communication by CA (afaik) and that change is technically a paywall put onto the game hence my original argument : "don't just dismiss completely the paywall claim" (completely being bolded for a reason)

(Which is also worrying for me because of 3K but discussing about that would be off-topic)

Let me remind you what the OP is about : People are complaining about paywalls in the Warhammer games. Is there a paywall in the game the answer is yes. I proved as much.

Are factions DLC's that adds new factions that are only playable if you pay for the DLC a paywall ? No. Don't get me wrong it's a shame because those factions have their traits and quirks and it's unfortunate you can't experience it without paying first (basically the "best" thing in my opinion would probably to release at least one faction that's free so people can actually try the playstyle and if they like it then buy the DLC for the full package) but again, it's a shame, not a paywall.

I believe the bit about Steam reviews was just an excuse. Nobody cares about these idiots. Yes, review bombing can bring down an obscure title, but they have basically no impact on well known ones. Look at PUBG.

Please don't try to switch the subject of the topic (especially with the "entitled" and "paranoid" statements that are borderline ad-hominem imho).

-Forum Terms and Conditions: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/172193/forum-terms-and-conditions#latest-Using all caps is the equivalent of shouting. Please don't.-The "Spam" flag is not a "disagree" flag. Have a care.-...No, no the "Abuse" flag isn't a "disagree" flag either!-5.7 Summon a moderator if someone seems to be out of line, or use the report button. Do NOT become another party to misbehaviour

Though there is a paywall, no doubt. And, no doubt, they impact how you play.

I've always thought that about the Lord Packs. After all, sure, you don't get those units but everyone else does and the rest of the game is balanced around having those units. Especially in multiplayer those Lord Packs truly give you an advantage.

But the stuff in those Lord Packs takes money to develop and without having Lord Packs we wouldn't be getting it, I am fairly convinced of that. As such, I'd much rather have there be a paywall than there not be one, if you take my meaning.

-Forum Terms and Conditions: https://forums.totalwar.com/discussion/172193/forum-terms-and-conditions#latest-Using all caps is the equivalent of shouting. Please don't.-The "Spam" flag is not a "disagree" flag. Have a care.-...No, no the "Abuse" flag isn't a "disagree" flag either!-5.7 Summon a moderator if someone seems to be out of line, or use the report button. Do NOT become another party to misbehaviour

I absolutely get your meaning, and I also think I can see why CA did this : after all Lords somewhat have "personalities" in Warhammer (as opposed to regular TW randomly generated lords fools you get when confederating in R2 or Attila)

However it's still a cause of concern to me to see it handled that way (aka in a relatively secretive fashion) again especially with 3K in the back of my mind (because diplomacy seems to be important AND the characters in 3K are also important especially in the fantasy-ish setting)

No matter what I do believe CA should clarify their stance on this (because yes it's a feature but I can't rule out it's a "left-out" feature, because you know sometimes you test something and you forget to remove it as a "mod tinkerer" that happened to me many times)

Well you don't but I do because that's a paywall (on diplomacy if anything else)

What exactly *is* a paywall? I'm quite sure that if went to a restaurant and started accusing them of putting a paywall on my pizza because they don't give a free beer with it they would show me the door.

Well they do put a paywall on addional toppings or seasonings don't they ? (then again I rarely go to restaurants)

A paywall is just a... paywall ? While there's generally a bad/good conotations with things I personnally believe the paywall is not "inherently" evil. In this case what appeals to me is the fact it's actually done in a somewhat sloppy way actually. (Because yes I'm digging deeper on this as my campaign goes on)

So another exemple of this paywall being in place are the handmaidens. The option to recruit them is there but it tells you to build a DLC only building to get them. Okay fair. Now I see another faction (AI) with that building, let's confederate aaaaand the building is gone with no compensation (at the very least give me the worth of the building in coins to compensate, like cmon)

But now you know what's really dumb in my most humble opinion with this exemple ?

They actually didn't disband the handmaiden good guy Alith Anar got himself before I confederated with him.

You might be wondering what's MY problem, well it's just done in a sloppy and non coherent way, that's what is ticking me. The paywall itself again, not inherently evil or good, it's just there. But the means to enforce that paywall must stay coherent.

It's like you asking for that free beer and they said "okay" and just gave you a tiny sample (I ain't into beer so bear with me on that one), at that point wouldn't you think "Well, they are messing up with me now" ?

Of all things to complain they went this route. They should yell CA does not provide enough DLC. There is no paywall when two of DLC factions are either lacking or just unbearable because of mechanics, respectively Beastmen and Wood Elves.

I'm all for flaming CA for advertising TW:WHII with Mortal Empires but not delivering The Old World races updates fast enough. Doubling down on 'no rites' for TW:WHI races is one big reason to pick up a torch. After all in TW:WHIII I expect all races to be on the same level of polish.

If you do not like a DLC do not buy it but you cannot complain no matter how small CA does also provide FLC with every DLC.

Warhammer Totalwar has to have the most variety of units in any other Totalwar game. Yes, CA did cut corners in siege battles and did not include any naval battles but with many unique models and animations that require so much more work compared to same human armies we have in every other historical title it is normal that we are getting these DLCs. Even comparing other Totalwar game DLCs to warhammer one is just wrong.

There are other more important issues with this game such as bugs and lack of content (missing units, LLs and so on).

I hardly call not being able to confederate Alarielle a paywall. It's a regular product. You bought the base game which includes 3 high elf lords. To be able to use the 4th one they added after release you need to pay because creating that stuff costs money. If that counts as a paywall the entire word lost its meaning and everything you have to pay for is a paywall.